Giving the poster(s) the benefit of the doubt, they could be two different people who work at the same place (hence the same IP, a la a shared NAT) who both post to MeFi. And maybe they just really like dotcomscoop as a key source for their news (maybe they even know Ben, or maybe not) which is why it's linked a few times by them, like the Drudge Report or Salon is for other people. Heck, people still link the Onion, even though probably every MeFite reads the damn thing regularly. As for the similarity of details- I'm not sure how much detail there is for anyone since not much is required to sign up besides an email, but if we were again looking at two co-worker friends, they'd probably have the same location, and the same domain, and the 1-week difference between account creations could be one buddy telling the other one, "Hey, I just found this cool site, you should go there too". And if one of them comments on a thread, he might give his buddy a heads up to say, "Check out what I wrote here".
So yeah, it's very possible to rationally explain how it could be all innocent. Indeed, I recall in the pre- and post- election period last fall, my sysadmin friend and I at the company I worked for would check out a lot of the same sites (we have similar political leanings, similar tastes, similar favorites folders), and tell each other immediately about stories we'd seen; had Salon or Slate been a weblog last November, I suspect my friend and I would have had their weblog analyzers asking the very same question you're asking right now. But it still sounds unusual... AC's idea for putting an entry on the last topic they posted in (naturally enough, a dotcomscoop link by AHM on the front page today) to contact them is a clever one, and probably the only way to contact them and ask point blank to clear it up, short of an expert analysis of their writing styles.
Damn. I need to a) get to bed, and b) learn about this thing you Earthlings call "brevity".posted by hincandenza at 2:12 AM on October 1, 2001
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble thinking of any instance where MeFi has been provided with proprietary information from underground informants.
People will fake personas regardless, and most users would prefer to use "identies" rather than reveal names & places of work (for job security).
Now this I can agree with, simply wanting to protect your identity so that Human Resources Nazis don't come after you at some point. But I don't agree that it's enough of a reason to allow for total anonymity. I don't care if people want to use pseudonyms while posting in public, but they ought to be required to provide some level of identification to Matt himself. It's the only way to protect MeFi from out-and-out abuse from 100% anonymous people who will simply come back in an hour under a different name if you ban them now. At the very least, Matt ought to be given a real, non-web email address, or even a phone number.
Will I have to reveal my past identity to prove to you all that I'm a long-term, decent poster.
Yes, because we don't believe you.
That would be ironic after feeling forced to change my ID in the first place because of the general harrassment of those so up their own arses that they think that they have a right to lecture all.
We don't believe this either. If you were being harassed earlier, why didn't you alert Matt at the time? He would have taken action to stop it.
Is metafilter now a fascist state?
Metafilter has ALWAYS been a fascist state. It is Matt's site. What Matt says goes. If you don't like it, write some code and start your own discussion site. You'll be free to set that one up as a "democracy," if you so desire.posted by aaron at 2:11 PM on October 1, 2001
Nedrichards: Not the Militant Grammarians of Massachusetts? Yep... gotta love the DFW ref... :)posted by hincandenza at 3:48 PM on October 1, 2001